QT: If women can be male, wtf is a woman then? What term, if any, should we use to describe the female sex?

submitted by SnowAssMan from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (42 children)

What is a “set based” definition? I googled it and nothing came up.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (41 children)

Defining something by a group. For instance: A mammal is a warm blooded vertebrates that have hair, produce milk to nourish young, and have live births; or a monotreme.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

lol no, that's just a definition of mammal, a "set based" definition would be to just list some mammals: bear, cow, whale. Do set based definitions only replace definitions whenever convenient?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

It literally included two discreet sets the traditionally conceived mammals and monotremes.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

So your "set based definition" of woman should have read: a woman is an adult human female; or an adult human male. So we are back to square one. If women can be male, wtf is a woman?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

In fact it did, my definition of trans woman later in the line called out male or intersex person who met other requirements.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Again, so we're back where we started: if women can be male then wtf is a woman? The answer to that question isn't simply restating that women can supposedly be male.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

I’ve literally defined woman in this thread already.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

All you did was reiterate the first half of my question: that women can be male. That doesn't answer the question. My question is, if women can be male, wtf is a woman? I never asked: "who is included under the umbrella: 'woman'?" – which appears to be the question you'd much rather answer.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (11 children)

I’ve already defined it. That’s my answer.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

So a set definition is defining a something that makes sense to put together as group. Yet you separated females from intersex and trans people, in the set definition you created? Like- humans are mammals, but a mammal isn’t a set on its own, when we say a being is a mammal, we still have to know what that being is, aside from being a mammal, right?

So a mammal would be the set- but it includes humans, dogs, cats, horses, etc. But they all function the same way reproductively, and are still separated by species, and within the species, by sex. So why would humans be the only mammals in the set of mammals were a male would be grouped with females? TW and women are already linked by being the same species.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It just seems like, the “set” would be

Mammals

then

Human

Then human gets split into male and female. (And males and females get split into adolescents and adults)

I still don’t get why we’d mix the males and females into one word when they are already a part of the “set” of humans and only got split into male and female based on sex.

So what I’m trying to understand is, why do we create a set within a set (TW and “natal” women) , within a set (male and female humans- humans being the set) within a set (mammals)?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

But not all mammals function the same way reproductively. Monotremes don’t. That’s why the definition separated them.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

But transwomen aren’t monotremes...

TW were born capable of functioning like most mammals.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

It was an example of set based definitions. Which you asked me to clarify the nature of. No one is claiming trans women are monotremes.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

I’m saying if trans women aren’t monotremes, they’re just regular mammals. So they should be grouped and classed the way all mammals are: by sex.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

I don’t agree that’s how mammals are grouped.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

How are they grouped?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Subspecies, size, social role, development divergence, many different metrics.